• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Florida scraps high-speed rail plan pushed by Obama

How? It's better for the environment, cheaper to run, and causes people to venture out more because of the fact that it is cheaper and allows them to travel further and more often.

Where is the downside? Charlotte is going to build a highspeed train to Washington D.C. and I, along with others here in Charlotte, are extremely excited about the prospect of being able to get from here to D.C. or NYC in a reasonable amount of time for a reasonable price.

I might even drive my electric car to the train station when it is built in a few years. How awesome would that be?

There's already passenger rail service from Charlotte to D.C.

Do you use it?
 
It costs more then it's worth, is economically unsustainable, and American's don't do trains like Europeans do.

Neither are airlines.

The Airline Industry
Airlines' profitability is closely tied to economic growth and trade. During the first half of the 1990s, the industry suffered not only from world recession but travel was further depressed by the Gulf War. In 1991 the number of international passengers dropped for the first time. The financial difficulties were exacerbated by airlines over-ordering aircraft in the boom years of the late 1980s, leading to significant excess capacity in the market. IATA's member airlines suffered cumulative net losses of $20.4bn in the years from 1990 to 1994.

Since then, airlines have had to recognize the need for radical change to ensure their survival and prosperity. Many have tried to cut costs aggressively, to reduce capacity growth and to increase load factors. At a time of renewed economic growth, such actions have returned the industry as a whole to profitability: IATA airlines' profits were $5bn in 1996, less than 2% of total revenues. This is below the level IATA believes is necessary for airlines to reduce their debt, build reserves and sustain investment levels. In addition, many airlines remain unprofitable.

It's funny that you say we don't do trains like Europeans... we don't have them. One might think, "hey, no **** Sherlock." The more trains in operation and the wider area covered, the more likely they are to be used. Plus they are far better for the environment and use less energy than flying a jet full of people. I know conservatives, like religions, are opposed to change, but don't make us drag you kicking and screaming on everything, okay?

Some change is good. You can accept it. :)

*Edit: Here's some more stuff about high speed rails and airlines for you

Spain's High-Speed Trains Outmuscle Airlines - BusinessWeek
U.S. President Barack Obama has set aside $13 billion in stimulus and budget funds for high-speed trains in America. If he wants an example of how best to use that cash, Obama might take a look at Spain’s growing high-speed network.

I’ve just arrived in Madrid from Barcelona during a reporting trip. And for the first time, I chose the high-speed rail system, known locally as Ave, instead of a traditional airline connection. My verdict: The train beats air travel hands down.

That certainly wasn’t always the case. It has been years since I’ve traveled between the two biggest Spanish cities, but I remember well that there used to be only two options: Forking out big bucks for an airline ticket on the national carrier, Iberia, or facing five or more hours trundling slowly across Spain’s countryside in a worn-out train.

Since early 2008, though, Spaniards have enjoyed the new, state-of-the-art Ave railway service that makes the journey between the city centers of Madrid and Barcelona in just two-and-a-half hours. (No traveling to far-flung airports, long lines for check-in and security, fighting for space in overhead luggage bins…) It’s another of the superfast train systems that cover Europe and that are the envy of some dreamers in the U.S.

(The Madrid-Barcelona Ave line uses trains from Germany’s Siemens. Due to an editing error, an earlier version of this posting said the equipment came from Alstom, which makes the technology used in France’s famous TGV. But Alstom gear is, in fact, used on Spain’s high speed service between Madrid and Seville.)

Needless to say, the arrival of Ave hasn’t been good news for Iberia or a number of discount Spanish airlines that sprang up in recent years. According to media reports, high-speed trains now carry almost half of the passengers between Madrid and Barcelona.

It’s easy to see why. Sitting in comfortable seats with loads of legroom (I’m 6’4”, so that’s pretty important), I had a choice of watching a movie on flatscreen TVs spread throughout the cabin, or listening to a selection of radio stations piped through a jack next to my seat. A well-stocked food cart also helped pass the time. As Bruno, a marketing exec from Barcelona who was sitting next to me, said: “Why fly when you have all of this?”

Indeed, the spread of Spain’s high-speed fleet will soon eclipse that of France, whose TGV trains have become synonymous with 185 mile-per-hour travel. And the quality of the Spanish service should give others pause—particularly France’s SNCF, which partly runs the considerably less generous Eurostar service between London and continental cities. If extra amenities come free with Spain’s high-speed trains, why can’t others around Europe (and beyond) offer something similar?

There's already passenger rail service from Charlotte to D.C.

Do you use it?

It is expensive and slow. It makes more sense to drive or fly.
 
Last edited:
Your principal is wrong. After trillions of dollars being spent, how many jobs have been created by the government?

I do not know current government employment numbers.

IOW, you don't have a clue what I'm telling you? In one ear and out the other?

I wouldn't have asked if I believed I had a logical answer to your stance.

And, that's where the government gets 90+% of it's revenue. That being the case, the government can't create wealth.

And taxes are different from consumer spending in this regard, how? Ultimately, one pays a fee, whether it is private or public and that fee (not always, but in certain cases) used to create value from lesser value, such as the highway system.
 
It costs more then it's worth, is economically unsustainable, and American's don't do trains like Europeans do.

yep


Governor Rick Scott says No to High-Speed Rail | Red County

Governor Scott rightly denied this project for the following three reasons:
First – capital cost overruns from the project could put Florida taxpayers on the hook for an additional $3 billion.
Second – ridership and revenue projections are historically overly-optimistic and would likely result in ongoing subsidies that state taxpayers would have to incur. (from $300 million – $575 million over 10 years) – Note: The state subsidizes Tri-Rail $34.6 million a year while passenger revenues covers only $10.4 million of the $64 million annual operating budget.
Finally – if the project becomes too costly for taxpayers and is shut down, the state would have to return the $2.4 billion in federal funds to D.C.
 
Some change is good. You can accept it. :)

Not gonna happen until gas/diesel is $10 a gallon. Until then, the best, fastest train in the world will not make money. It comes down to the economics and convenience factors. We like our cars too much and gas is too cheap to be bothered at the train station. $50 round trip from Trenton to Baltimore, took just as long as driving. If I commuted every day - sure, I'd take the train. A once in a while trip - I'd rather drive - it's cheaper at the existing gas prices and on the way back, the train stopped due to a power outage in Philly - waited 45 minutes to get it fixed.
 
He can give the money to Charlotte. We'll take it for our train! :)

Thanks! Clean energy capital of the US!

IT's all you --- when it doesn't pay off - you'll also be the highest taxed capital in the US. :2wave:
 
Florida scraps high-speed rail plan pushed by Obama - USATODAY.com



But...but...didn't Obama promise us high speed rail in the SOTU address?

1) Obama did promise us high-speed rail, and was willing to provide federal funds for it in Florida. But it was Rick Scott, Florida's governor, who won't accept it. So Obama is willing to fulfill his promise. So I see no point in your attempt to do a "take that" at Obama.

2) Do you know anything at all about Florida? Do you follow Florida politics at all? Have you ever lived in Florida? Have you ever experienced the transportation infrastructure of Florida? Because, trust me, I would LOVE to discuss it with you, and anyone else, in depth any day of the week. But I just wanted to know if you really wanted to have an honest discussion about it or was just using a news article about something you don't really know anything about to vent at our President.
 
Not gonna happen until gas/diesel is $10 a gallon. Until then, the best, fastest train in the world will not make money. It comes down to the economics and convenience factors. We like our cars too much and gas is too cheap to be bothered at the train station. $50 round trip from Trenton to Baltimore, took just as long as driving. If I commuted every day - sure, I'd take the train. A once in a while trip - I'd rather drive - it's cheaper at the existing gas prices and on the way back, the train stopped due to a power outage in Philly - waited 45 minutes to get it fixed.

Again, those aren't high speed trains. As they get more connected, they get used more, and more profitable (while prices drop simultaneously).

Airlines, for the most part, are not profitable either. We support them with subsidies because we feel that cheap, fast travel is important for our economy and citizens. I would rather subsidize a high speed train than an airline.

Comparing Amtrak to a high speed rail is like comparing an unfunded bus transit system to NYC's subway or D.C.'s Metro. Yeah, no one rides the bus because it's slow, somewhat expensive, and often takes too long for a bus to come by. Everyone rides the subway/metro.

Are you telling me you wouldn't ride a high speed rail to L.A. if you had to make a trip and it was available?
 
1) Obama did promise us high-speed rail, and was willing to provide federal funds for it in Florida. But it was Rick Scott, Florida's governor, who won't accept it. So Obama is willing to fulfill his promise. So I see no point in your attempt to do a "take that" at Obama.

How refreshing is that? If someone would have said, "The federal government is going to give Florida 2.4 billion dollars for a high speed rail system" and someone told me a politician in Florida (any politician) said "No" and is going to give the money back to the Fed, I would have called BS so fast it would make your head spin.

What it does mean alternatively, is that the Fed is not able to dictate, is what the States MUST do, and it's as simple as saying "No" and handing the money back. Scott should get a kewpie doll for doing that. Awesome!
 
Again, those aren't high speed trains. As they get more connected, they get used more, and more profitable (while prices drop simultaneously).
Is there any example of high speed trains in the U.S. that are profitable?

Airlines, for the most part, are not profitable either.... I would rather subsidize a high speed train than an airline.
Based on what factors?

Are you telling me you wouldn't ride a high speed rail to L.A. if you had to make a trip and it was available?
I would out of curiousity but not out of necessity. I'd fly.
 
Neither are airlines.

The Airline Industry


It's funny that you say we don't do trains like Europeans... we don't have them. One might think, "hey, no **** Sherlock." The more trains in operation and the wider area covered, the more likely they are to be used. Plus they are far better for the environment and use less energy than flying a jet full of people. I know conservatives, like religions, are opposed to change, but don't make us drag you kicking and screaming on everything, okay?

Some change is good. You can accept it. :)

*Edit: Here's some more stuff about high speed rails and airlines for you

Spain's High-Speed Trains Outmuscle Airlines - BusinessWeek




It is expensive and slow. It makes more sense to drive or fly.

And it's still losing money! How will the new version be better? There's no way that the high speed rail is going to be cheaper to build and operate.
 
I do not know current government employment numbers.

It's irrelevant, because the government can't create jobs.


And taxes are different from consumer spending in this regard, how? Ultimately, one pays a fee, whether it is private or public and that fee (not always, but in certain cases) used to create value from lesser value, such as the highway system.

There is no difference, because both orginate in the private sector. Again, the government can't make money. They can only take money--in the form of taxes--from the private sector.
 
Neither! How many times do I have to say that?? Work programs are nothing more than welfare.





Since it's that easy, we can all just stay home and wait for the gubmint check to come on the first of the month.





The solution to the economy and unemployment, is for people to stop believing that the government isn't the solution.





Anyone that believes that government is the solution to economic ills and unemployment, is a Liberal, my friend. Sorry.

Someone was on the radio the other morning saying that the US revalues its money just as much as the Chinese, maybe even more. How can this be? The Chinese are suppose to be the bastards.
 
It's irrelevant, because the government can't create jobs.


There is no difference, because both orginate in the private sector. Again, the government can't make money. They can only take money--in the form of taxes--from the private sector.

Actually that's not true since I work for the govt. It's just that govt jobs don't build wealth, but only serve the People.
 
This is what I hate about any rail debate...

The issue is framed like this by conservatives:
Republicans: anti-subsidies, Democrats: Pro-rail subsidies

When in reality, the picture is like this:
Republicans: pro-oil-based-subsidies, Democrats: pro-transportation-subsides (rail, air, auto)

singersubsidy.gif


All transportation is subsidized. The gas taxes you pay go into the highway trust fund. But that only covers a little over half of highway operations. Southwest Airlines doesn't build airports. They pay taxes to use them, but that does not cover the cost of their construction. And yes, the Chicago Transit Administration is not profitable either. Local governments have to spend money to keep the trains running. But what would happen if we stopped (transit subsidies only)? The average weekday daily ridership of the Red Line is 250K boardings. Would it make sense to add 100,000 cars to the already packed Lake Shore Drive and Dan Ryan Expressway? Or would that incur billions of dollars in lost revenue due to wasted gasoline, lost time, pollution, environmental justice, etc?

The same can be said of HSR in the near future. California's population is supposed to reach 60,000,000 in 2050, up from about 39,000,000 today. With highways and airports already at capacity, how are people to make intercity trips? We could fund a HSR project (~$45B if I remember correctly), add two lanes to I-5 (~$80B), or expand/build airports to the same capacity (~$80B). Or we could do nothing and incur billions of dollars annually in lost revenue and productivity. All cases incur billions in costs. The HSR option is the cheapest and has the added benefits of being more environmentally friendly, allowing better access to isolated cities like Fresno, connectivity with a planned privately funded Las Vegas-LA HSR line, downtown development, freedom from oil dependency, and perhaps most importantly to conservatives, runs an operating profit (find me one HSR line in the world that doesn't turn an operational profit. ACELA is a piece of crap, yet it still makes an operational profit.)

I don't mind if you are opposed to federal and state subsidies to rail transportation...provided you are opposed to subsidies on all forms of transportation. Keep in mind that in this scenario, your fiscal ethics compel you to walk to work and bike to the grocery store. On a dirt path.
 
Last edited:
How refreshing is that? If someone would have said, "The federal government is going to give Florida 2.4 billion dollars for a high speed rail system" and someone told me a politician in Florida (any politician) said "No" and is going to give the money back to the Fed, I would have called BS so fast it would make your head spin.

What it does mean alternatively, is that the Fed is not able to dictate, is what the States MUST do, and it's as simple as saying "No" and handing the money back. Scott should get a kewpie doll for doing that. Awesome!

I see you're from New Jersey. And not from Florida. Why don't you first come down here and actually live in Florida for a while before you exalt how great it is that people spread so far apart in this state can't get around to other parts before you celebrate that fact because of the principle of the matter?
 
Actually that's not true since I work for the govt. It's just that govt jobs don't build wealth, but only serve the People.

Your job wasn't created by the government. It was created by the private sector's demand.
 
This is what I hate about any rail debate...

The issue is framed like this by conservatives:
Republicans: anti-subsidies, Democrats: Pro-rail subsidies

When in reality, the picture is like this:
Republicans: pro-oil-based-subsidies, Democrats: pro-transportation-subsides (rail, air, auto)

singersubsidy.gif


All transportation is subsidized. The gas taxes you pay go into the highway trust fund. But that only covers a little over half of highway operations. Southwest Airlines doesn't build airports. They pay taxes to use them, but that does not cover the cost of their construction. And yes, the Chicago Transit Administration is not profitable either. Local governments have to spend money to keep the trains running. But what would happen if we stopped (transit subsidies only)? The average weekday daily ridership of the Red Line is 250K boardings. Would it make sense to add 100,000 cars to the already packed Lake Shore Drive and Dan Ryan Expressway? Or would that incur billions of dollars in lost revenue due to wasted gasoline, lost time, pollution, environmental justice, etc?

The same can be said of HSR in the near future. California's population is supposed to reach 60,000,000 in 2050, up from about 39,000,000 today. With highways and airports already at capacity, how are people to make intercity trips? We could fund a HSR project (~$45B if I remember correctly), add two lanes to I-5 (~$80B), or expand/build airports to the same capacity (~$80B). Or we could do nothing and incur billions of dollars annually in lost revenue and productivity. All cases incur billions in costs. The HSR option is the cheapest and has the added benefits of being more environmentally friendly, allowing better access to isolated cities like Fresno, connectivity with a planned privately funded Las Vegas-LA HSR line, downtown development, freedom from oil dependency, and perhaps most importantly to conservatives, runs an operating profit (find me one HSR line in the world that doesn't turn an operational profit. ACELA is a piece of crap, yet it still makes an operational profit.)

I don't mind if you are opposed to federal and state subsidies to rail transportation...provided you are opposed to subsidies on all forms of transportation. Keep in mind that in this scenario, your fiscal ethics compel you to walk to work and bike to the grocery store. On a dirt path.

I'm in the trucking business and I haven't gotten a single penny from the government to subsidize my business.
 
I'm in the trucking business and I haven't gotten a single penny from the government to subsidize my business.

Really? Your trucking business builds its own roads? Well good for you.
 
Last edited:
Really? Your trucking business builds its own roads? Well good for you.

No, but my trucking business pays around $6,000 a year in fees and taxes, that are supposed to go toward road maintanance and construction. So, don't give me that crap about how I'm getting, "subsidies", from the government.

You shouldn't try to hornswaggle people into believing that those roads are pay for with anything other than tax dollars.

Ever hear of, "heavy road use taxes"?

How much in fees and taxes is this piece-a-**** high speed rail going to pay into the government?
 
Last edited:
You shouldn't try to hornswaggle people into believing that those roads are pay for with anything other than tax dollars.

Of course roads are paid for with tax dollars. Like sales taxes, property taxes, the general fund and other non-user based fees. People who don't own cars subsidize your road, just like people who don't take the train pay for upkeep of tracks.
 
Of course roads are paid for with tax dollars. Like sales taxes, property taxes, the general fund and other non-user based fees. People who don't own cars subsidize your road, just like people who don't take the train pay for upkeep of tracks.

Well, I'm glad you agree that transportation isn't subsidized by the government.
 
I feel it necessary to point out that each and every "subsidy" was at one point a tax.


The government does not subsidize anything. The taxpayers do, albeit through the vehicle of government.


Which is damned overloaded atm.
 
I see you're from New Jersey. And not from Florida. Why don't you first come down here and actually live in Florida for a while before you exalt how great it is that people spread so far apart in this state can't get around to other parts before you celebrate that fact because of the principle of the matter?

I'm just enamored that a politician is giving money back to the Fed. That's like finding out Bigfoot is not only real, but is CPA living in Orange County Oregon and grows his own hybrid pot.
 
Back
Top Bottom